Planned sprint ADS_Q1-26_W-11-12 • planning snapshot + end-of-sprint outcome snapshot
This version uses the planning snapshot as the promise set and the outcome snapshot as the result set. Count metrics link to snapshot-exact JQL result pages. Jira IDs in the report link to live Jira issues.
Download DOCXYellow. The sprint closed 15/19 visible items. The team absorbed noise well — all 6 added items were closed — but predictability on committed work was only 55.6% (5/9), and bugs made up 40.0% of completed items. The main drag was execution system quality, not readiness: 4/4 carryovers had been marked Ready at planning time.
| Metric | Value | How to read it |
|---|---|---|
| Committed completion | 55.6% (5/9) | Planned items marked Done ÷ all planned committed items |
| Finish predictability | 71.4% (5/7) | Finish-intent planned items done ÷ all finish-intent planned items |
| Progress predictability | 100.0% (2/2) | Progress items that behaved as intended by carrying |
| Added-during-sprint load | 31.6% (6/19) | Added items ÷ all visible items |
| Added work closure | 6/6 | All added items marked Done |
| Reactive load (bug share) | 40.0% (6/15) | Completed bugs ÷ all completed work |
| Planning quality | 100.0% (9/9) | Committed items marked Ready ÷ all committed items |
| Workflow-truth mismatches | 2 | Items marked Done in review while workflow status remained non-final |
The sprint did not fail; it traded predictability for responsiveness. All 6 added items closed, but that responsiveness came with 40.0% bug share and diluted committed completion.
The miss pattern is concentrated: 2 partial-completion carryovers, 1 dependency-driven misses, and 1 committed items that never really started.
Most misses were not caused by poor readiness. 4 of the 4 carryovers had been marked Ready, so the stronger hypothesis is breakdown, sequencing, and capacity protection rather than simple scoping immaturity.
| Type | Planned | Added | Stretch | Unclear | Total done | Done % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Story | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 33.3% |
| Task | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 26.7% |
| Bug | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 40.0% |
| Signal | Value | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Committed items | 9 | Explicit promise set |
| Committed done | 5 | Closed as promised |
| Committed carry over | 4 | Unfinished promise |
| Committed items marked Ready | 9 | Planning-quality input |
| Carryovers marked Ready | 4 | Ready did not guarantee finish |
| Carryovers not started | 1 | Execution focus gap |
| Carryovers started but unfinished | 3 | Work moved, but did not close |
| Jira item | Owner | Status | Why it carried |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADS-6661 — Story — [Catalog][Situatie scolara] - US4 Echivalari | andrei.alexandru | In Progress | Partial completion |
| ADS-6835 — Story — [Admitere v2] [US1.3] -Editare medie admitere single | George Murgoci | In Progress | Partial completion |
| ADS-6910 — Bug — [BE-PHP][Cazari] - Soldul de pe fisa studentului nu corespunde cu cel de pe student | Ionut Ciolan | In Progress | Not started |
| ADS-7077 — Task — [QA][Financiar] - E2E testing UMS | Paul Bostan | To Do | Dependency delay |
| Pattern | Count | What it suggests |
|---|---|---|
| Partial completion | 2 | Breakdown / sizing / stage-gating was not tight enough |
| Dependency delay | 1 | Capacity protection or dependency timing created slip |
| Not started | 1 | A committed item remained outside execution focus |
| In Progress / Code Review carryovers | 3 | Most misses were moving, but not closing |
Items marked Done in the sprint-review field while Jira workflow status was still non-final.
| Jira item | Summary | Status | Intent |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADS-6933 — Bug | [BE][UPA] - Calcularea numarului de credite in 'Catalog' - 'Promovare studenți' | Testing | Finish |
| ADS-7012 — Task | [UNI][BE] Code Sanity: Deprecate and Remove Unused Endpoints, Services and DAO Methods | Code Review | Finish |
| Question | Why this matters | What evidence to ask for |
|---|---|---|
| Why did committed items carry over despite planning readiness? | This tests execution quality rather than just scope quality. | Show carryovers split by progress continuation, dependency, and not-started. |
| Are Progress items being managed intentionally? | Progress items are allowed to continue, but the continuation should be visible and controlled. | Show the original slice and the specific landing expectation for each item. |
| Is added work a healthy responsiveness level or chronic interruption? | High responsiveness can hide systemic instability and diluted predictability. | Show which added items were urgent/reactive versus discretionary scope change. |
| Can we trust Done in review when workflow is still non-final? | Workflow-truth gaps reduce trust and make completion easy to game. | Show the exact mismatches and the completion rule to enforce next sprint. |
Usage note: start with the top-line metrics, then use the traceability links to answer these questions with issue-level evidence.
| Snapshot | Issue count | Link |
|---|---|---|
| Planning snapshot full list | 13 | 13 issues used for planning baseline |
| Sprint review / outcome snapshot full list | 19 | 19 issues reviewed at sprint review |
These links are snapshot-exact JQL lists, intended for drill-down and debugging.